Other than the United Nations, it is the largest international organization of any kind

Its ultimate goal is outlawing, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments

Considers any and all negative portrayals (whether real, perceived or alleged) of Islam as "Islamophobia"

Founded in 1971 and composed of 57 member states with Muslim-majority populations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the largest Islamic body in the world. Other than the United Nations, it is also the largest international organization of any kind, representing an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

OIC’s manifold purpose is to promote Islamic values, revitalize Islam’s pioneering role in the world, strengthen and enhance the bond of solidarity among Muslim states, support “the Palestinian struggle,” and defend Islam generally. OIC's charter professes a commitment to promoting peace and tolerance on the one hand, and to fighting terrorism on the other.

The organization's actions, however, are dissonant with these stated aims.

For many years, OIC has been pushing incrementally toward its ultimate goal of outlawing, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments.

In the aftermath of 9/11, OIC's quest to achieve this objective shifted into high gear when the group professed its concern about an angry backlash -- which supposedly manifested itself with both words and deeds -- against Muslims in the United States. But in fact, no such backlash ever occurred.

In 2005, OIC urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to pass a resolution titled “Combating Defamation of Religions.” Although this title referred to "acts of discrimination, intimidation, hatred, and defamation" of religions generally, the text of the resolution cited only concerns pertaining to Islam. According to the resolution, media outlets around the world were unfairly portraying Islam in a negative fashion and were thereby inciting discrimination and intolerance against Muslims everywhere.

OIC further contended that any speculation about a connection between Islam and terrorism (or between Islam and human rights violations) was firmly rooted in the soil of Islamophobic bigotry. Moreover, said OIC, the definition of terrorism should be altered so as to exclude the killing of innocent civilians where the perpetrators are engaged in “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation” -- a transparent reference to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

The “Combating Defamation of Religions” initiative was formally passed on March 30, 2007, by a vote of 24 to 14.

OIC’s insistence on prohibiting defamatory speech against Islamic practices and countries demanded no corollary ban on anti-Jewish or anti-Israel rhetoric. Indeed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad candidly expressed his desire to eliminate the “Zionist regime” at an OIC Special Session in 2006. In addition, OIC backs Iran’s nuclear program, supports Hamas, and rationalizes the attacks of 9/11 as acts of retribution for American transgressions.

At its 2006 summit in Mecca, OIC adopted a zero-tolerance policy regarding insults against Islam, going so far as to include “hostile glances” in its definition of Islamophobic behavior. The immediate goal of the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in European parliaments and the UN Human Rights Council (which had replaced the UN Human Rights Commission in March 2006).

OIC also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam,” both of which would be based on Sharia (Islamic Law) and, as such, would entirely contradict some key tenets of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- such as equality before the law; the right to a fair trial; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and freedom of opinion and expression.

In 2007, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, widely considered to be a “moderate” Muslim professor from Turkey, used the UN’s “International Day of Tolerance” to assert that freedom of speech was unacceptable if it was used to criticize Islam. He said:

“[M]uslims around the world are the first victims of intolerance. They are facing a campaign of hatred and prejudice, what is otherwise known as Islamophobia. This growing trend of Islamophobia has subjected them to discrimination including religious profiling and stereotyping. The right to freedom of speech is being used to defile the sacred symbols of Islam…. [I]t is high time that the international community considers enacting legal measures against defamation of religions and religious beliefs. I would urge the Alliance of Civilizations and the Human Rights Council to take pro-active action in this regard.”

In March 2008, OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where it demanded legal sanctions against all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam -- including the work of cartoonists, film producers, reporters, politicians, and governments. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from [charges of] blasphemy” explained Senegal president and OIC chairman Abdoulaye Wade. “There can be no freedom without limits.”

At this 2008 summit, OIC issued a 58-page report enumerating a host of real, perceived, and alleged claims of Islamophobia. These included “negative” news stories about Muslims or Islamic practices, even accounts that were entirely accurate. Some of the specific incidents classified as Islamophobic included:

Wikipedia’s refusal to obey the Muslim demand to remove all depictions of the Prophet Mohammed from its English language website

a news report accurately stating that Muslims in Qatar, outraged by the recent opening of a non-Muslim house of worship in their country, were demanding a ban against any further construction of such churches

the fact that Florida's Attorney General had shown the movie Obsession, which warned about the deadly ambitions of radical Islam, to his staff

the fact that the European Union had asked Iran to stop imposing the death penalty for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft

the fact that news outlets had reported, accurately, that Muslims had made death threats against Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, producer of the documentary Fitna, a film demonstrating that Islamic terrorists did indeed find justification for their violence in Koranic scripture.

OIC's 2008 report suggested that such examples of so-called “Islamophobia” posed a grave threat to global peace and security; that legal instruments should be implemented to prohibit Islamophobic speech; that monitors should be set up to compile lists of Islamophobic incidents; and that people everywhere should be taught that Islam is a moderate, peaceful, and tolerant religion. In effect, OIC sought to deny the free speech rights of any would-be critic of any Islamic practice.

As a result of OIC pressure on the UN Human Rights Council, the latter passed a resolution (in June 2008) requiring all speaker presentations and discussions to omit any “judgment or evaluation about religion.” Consequently, Human Rights Council proceedings now forbid any mention of controversial fatwas (religious rulings) or human rights abuses that may originate in Islamic countries or under the codes of Sharia. These include, for example, the forced marriages of young girls, the genital mutilation of young girls, the execution of homosexuals, and the stoning of rape victims (who are commonly considered to be adulterers by Islamic courts). Any negative reference to such practices now falls under the umbrella of “Islamophobia.”

United in their vision of a world where Israel does not exist, all OIC member countries support both Hamas and Hezbollah. Likewise, they all subscribe to the 1999 OIC Convention on Combating International Terrorism, a document stating that armed struggle against “foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” In short, terrorism against Israel is recast as “resistance” or “liberation.” As attorney and author Deborah Weiss points out, "The OIC countries are ... the reason the United Nations has been unsuccessful in achieving an anti-terrorism convention. The 56 OIC member countries refuse to define terrorism in any way that provides protection to Israel, instead legitimizing terrorism against it."

Much of this profile is adapted from the artcle "Jihad Against Free Speech," authored by Deborah Weiss and published by FrontPageMag.com on November 6, 2008.